Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 53-A, 173 -- POCSO matter -- Blood sample for DNA test -- Investigaiton report already filed – Permissibility of -- Petitioner is facing a charge of committing repeated rape on the prosecutrix, who was less than 16 years of age and also for committing penetrative sexual assault upon her – Trial Court allowed the application for DNA test – Revision challenging the order -- Held, mere fact that application has been filed after submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. is no ground to entertain revision petition as charges are yet to be framed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 366, 323, 354-B, 347, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 54, 49 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case -- Regular bail -- Person with whom the prosecutrix got married i.e. the petitioners' brother, and other co-accused, have been admitted to anticipatory bail by High court -- Petitioners' brother and the prosecutrix had earlier filed petition seeking protection of life and liberty upon having married each other – Testimony of the prosecutrix does not support the case of the petitioner, yet, keeping in view the entire circumstances, petition allowed – Order admitting the petitioner to interim bail, made absolute.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Compromise -- Since the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 420, 494 495 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Petitioner married the complainant – Thereafter, the complainant came to know that divorce proceedings of the petitioner with his ex-wife were pending -- FIR was lodged – Petitioner in custody since 08.01.2021 – A compromise has already been effected between the parties -- Trial of the case would take long time to conclude -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 344, 366, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 235, 360 – Kidnapping case -- Appellant/ accused no. 4 & 5 are not a main accused – Sentence reduce to 3 months/ already undergone -- Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing -- Main accusation was against accused no.1, who is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 344, 366, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years -- Even in the complaint, it was mentioned that accused no.1 was in love with the victim girl PW-2 -- It is also the case of the appellants that PW-1 was not a direct witness to the incident and PW-2 has been tutored by PW-1 -- Alleged incident is of the year 2014 and appellants (accused no. 4 & 5) have already served sentence of about three months and paid fine amount -- Pleaded that there is no one to take care of their minor son and old age parents -- Sentence modified for the period already undergone -- Appellants ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a ‘Captain’ in Army and that the complainant is a matured educated lady aged about 32 years who is working as a Lecturer, complainant and petitioner were friends and there had been physical relationship amongst them on several occasions -- FIR lodged when the relationship went sour subsequently – On these contentions ad-interim bail was granted – Petitioner has joined investigation and is not required for any custodial interrogation -- Alleged rape would be debatable -- Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376-D -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Compromise -- Parties are stated to have amicably resolved their issues and while also noticing that the petitioner in any case has been behind bars since the last about 10 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition, as such, accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Relation on pretext of marriage – Non-performing of marriage -- Quashing of FIR -- From the contents of the FIR as well as the statement u/s 164 of CrPC three important features emerge: (i) The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was of a consensual nature; (ii) The parties were in the relationship for about a period of one and a half years; and (iii) Subsequently, the appellant had expressed a disinclination to marry the second respondent which led to the registration of the FIR – Held, for the purposes of considering the application for quashing u/s 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established -- No allegation that the promise to marry was false at the inception on the contrary, from the contents of the FIR appears that there was a subsequent refusal – Held, High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition u/s 482 of CrPC – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside -- Charge sheet in pursuance of the investigation and order of the trial Court taking cognizance shall stand quashed and set aside.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 406 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Non-recovery of dowry articles – Effect of -- Petitioner was granted ad-interim anticipatory bail – In the FIR u/s 498-A and 406 IPC, interim bail cannot be rejected on the ground that dowry articles have not been returned – Petitioner joined the investigation, order granting interim bail to the petitioner, is made absolute. Bhupinder Singh’s case 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 109 relied.

(Para 3-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case -- Anticipatory bail -- On submission that petitioner and the prosecutrix were willing to marry each other and it was only because of refusal by the mother of the petitioner that the marriage could not be solemnised and he is still ready and willing to marry with the prosecutrix, no MLR because the FIR is 9 months after the alleged occurrence, delay would certainly be material, interim bail was granted to join the investigation -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further investigation of the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3, 4)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A (Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 added later on) – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Compromise – Prosecutrix is now almost 18, compromise states that the petitioner and prosecutrix were in a relationship -- Petitioner is 24 year of age -- In view of the above, especially when the petitioner is in custody for over a year, he is not involved in any other criminal case, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 1, 2, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Compromise between parties -- Complainant/prosecutrix’s counsel stated that it is correct that affidavit has been furnished by the complainant before the police that she does not want to proceed with the prosecution – Held, there can be no compromise in serious offences like under Section 376 IPC in normal circumstances, however, for the purpose of considering the grant of regular bail various other factors are to be seen, at this stage -- Petitioner is in custody for the last approximately six months and investigation is already complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stands presented -- Trial of the case may take long time, this Court deemed it fit and proper to allow the present petition.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Accordingly, FIR u/s 376 IPC, and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Dowry death case – Proclaimed absconder -- Accused was not in India at the time of incident – Contention that service of summons never effected/ co-accused acquitted -- On interim direction petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court, joined the proceedings and has been released on interim bail – As such the purpose for which the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated stand achieved and the petitioner no longer remains an absconder – Bail order made absolute.

(Para 7-11)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506 & 34 (offences u/s 363, 366-A, 120-B & 109 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Detention for 1 year, 2 months and 8 days -- Evidence of the material witnesses including Prosecutrix recorded – As per MLR there is “no evidence of any injury anywhere on the body, breast well developed. Axillary and Pubic Hair present. No Injury anywhere on external genitalia” -- Chemical Examiner's Report is also not helpful to the prosecution case -- In view of the long detention undergone by the petitioner as also the fact that the deposition of the material witnesses including the Prosecutrix have already been recorded, on account of which, there is no possibility of their being subjected to any kind of threat or pressure, at this stage, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail allowed.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB, 354A(I) – Rape case – Recall of minor witness/victim – Alleged that letter by victim stating about registration of wrong complaint -- Considering the fact that the victim/PW as duly supported the prosecution version and has proved the original complaint (Ex. P-1), which is in her own handwriting, and also in view of the fact that medical evidence duly supports the allegations of penetrative sexual assault on the victim, Court find no ground to allow the application to recall the victim/PW – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1,2,10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 323, 506, 142, 427, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abduction case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties on intervention of respectables have decided to patch up their difference.  -- Nothing to show that nature of the injuries were serious -- To meet the ends of justice and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the trial, FIR alongwith all consequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Complainant solemnized marriage with petitioner – Keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings -- Resultantly, FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed.

(Para 7,11,12)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357-A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Rape victim – Rights of -- Held, petitioner being a rape victim deserves treatment as rape victim by all the authorities – A rape victim suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from the society – Petitioner has two sons and one daughter – One son major, two children of the petitioner are still minor – Section 357A of the Cr.P.C provides procedure for grant of compensation, the petitioner had already made application to seek compensation under the above Scheme and payment of compensation has already been made. Directions given :

-- The Deputy Commissioner, to take measure to ensure that minor children of the petitioner are provided free education in any of the Government Institutions in District where the petitioner is residing till they attain the age of 14 years.

-- The Deputy Commissioner may also consider the case of the petitioner for providing house under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Central or State Scheme in which petitioner could be provided accommodation.

-- The Senior Superintendent of Police, and other competent authority shall review the Police security provided to the petitioner from time to time and take such measures as deem fit and proper.

-- The District Legal Services Authority on representation made by the petitioner shall render legal services to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard the interest of the petitioner.

(Para 16-19, 25-27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 376-D, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail -- Previously also FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable u/s 376-D, 365, 323, 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012, whereby a cancellation report submitted by the police has been accepted after hearing the complainant -- On similar allegations, the present FIR has been registered -- Affidavits given by the complainant and her daughter, wherein they have retracted from the allegations – Final report was filed on 06.02.2020, but the charges are yet to be framed -- Considering the custodial period of the petitioner, his further detention behind the bars may not be necessary -- Outbreak of pandemic COVID-19 may delay the conclusion of trial -- Petition allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 417, 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Perusal of the FIR goes to show that this is a case of physical intimacy between two consenting adults -- Complainant, who was of the age of 29 years at the relevant time in the year 2019 had only alleged that she had been allured by the accused/petitioner on the proposition of marriage -- It was never her case that at any time any actual force was resorted to on behalf of the petitioner – Complainant has herself compromised the dispute with the petitioner/accused -- F.I.R with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 2, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 377, 506, 34 (Section 376(2)(n) IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Unnatural offence -- Live-in relationship – Anticipatory bail – Promise to marry, resiled after selection as constable – In FIR complainant has stated that she had been socially divorced and leading a single lady life she had been in a live-in-relationship with the petitioner since 2016 and before that she was leading a single lady life --  Interim bail was granted to join Investigaiton – Petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for any further investigation – Petition allowed.

(Para 3-6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 361, 366 – Kidnapping of minor girl – Consensual affair with boy -- Appellant admits to having established sexual intercourse and of having an intention to marry her -- Whether a consensual affair can be a defence against the charge of kidnapping a minor? -- Held, section 361 IPC, bestows the ability to make crucial decisions regarding a minor’s physical safety upon his/her guardians -- Therefore, a minor girl’s infatuation with her alleged kidnapper cannot by itself be allowed as a defence, for the same would amount to surreptitiously undermining the protective essence of the offence of kidnapping -- Similarly, Section 366 of IPC postulates that once the prosecution leads evidence to show that the kidnapping was with the intention/knowledge to compel marriage of the girl or to force/induce her to have illicit intercourse, the enhanced punishment of 10 years as provided thereunder would stand attracted.

S. Varadarajan’s case (1965) 1 SCR 243 is distinguishable as it was restricted to an instance of “taking” and not “enticement” -- Cited judgment, therefore, cannot be of any assistance without establishing: first, knowledge and capacity with the minor of her actions; second, voluntary abandonment on part of the minor; and third, lack of inducement by the accused -- No fault can thus be found with the conviction of the appellant under Section 366 of IPC.

(Para 11-17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 359, 361, 366 – Kidnapping of minor girl – Consensual relationship with boy -- Appellant admits to having established sexual intercourse and of having an intention to marry her – Lower courts awarded 5 year R.I. -- Whether the punishment awarded is just, and ought there be leniency given the unique circumstances? -- Quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be revisited for the following reasons:

first, it is apparent that no force had been used in the act of kidnapping. There was no preplanning, use of any weapon or any vulgar motive. Although the offence as defined under Section 359 and 361 of IPC has no ingredient necessitating any use of force or establishing any oblique intentions, nevertheless the mildness of the crime ought to be taken into account at the stage of sentencing.

Second, although not a determinative factor, the young age of the accused at the time of the incident cannot be overlooked. As mentioned earlier, the appellant was at the precipice of majority himself. He was no older than about eighteen or nineteen years at the time of the offence and admittedly it was a case of a love affair. His actions at such a young and impressionable age, therefore, ought to be treated with hope for reform, and not punitively.

Third, owing to a protracted trial and delays at different levels, more than twenty-two years have passed since the incident. Both the victim and the appellant are now in their forties; are productive members of society and have settled down in life with their respective spouses and families. It, therefore, might not further the ends of justice to relegate the appellant back to jail at this stage.

Fourth, the present crime was one of passion. No other charges, antecedents, or crimes either before 1998 or since then, have been brought to our notice. The appellant has been rehabilitated and is now leading a normal life. The possibility of recidivism is therefore extremely low.

Fifth, unlike in the cases of State of Haryana v. Raja Ram [(1973) 1 SCC 544.] and Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat [(1973) 2 SCC 413.], there is no grotesque misuse of power, wealth, status or age which needs to be guarded against. Both the prosecutrix and the appellant belonged to a similar social class and lived in geographical and cultural vicinity to each other. Far from there being an imbalance of power; if not for the age of the prosecutrix, the two could have been happily married and cohabiting today. Indeed, the present instance is an offence: mala prohibita, and not mala in se. Accordingly, a more equitable sentence ought to be awarded.

Given these multiple unique circumstances, Court opined that sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Courts below, is disproportionate to the facts of the this case -- Concerns of both the society and the victim can be respected, and the twin principles of deterrence and correction would be served by reducing the appellant’s sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone by him -- Quantum of sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

(Para 21-28)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 35 --  Date of birth -- Recitals of the admission and withdrawal register are admissible in evidence, as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(Para 18)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 154, 155 -- Hostile witness – Evidential value -- Reliance upon other evidence -- Simply on the score that witnesses did not support the prosecution version in the Court, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place -- Their testimonies, as such, cannot be discarded in toto – Testimony of the hostile witnesses can be relied upon by the prosecution, to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version and cannot be treated as washed off the records -- There is no legal bar to base conviction of the accused, upon such kind of testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

-- While facing cross-examination, the prosecutrix has identified her signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and she has also admitted about having undergone medical examination.

-- Though, she had stated about the statement Ex.P4 before the Magistrate, to be an outcome of pressure of the police but however, no reason, as such, has been assigned, as to why the police intend to falsely implicate the appellant by making the prosecutrix as tool.

-- No bitterness or animosity at the behest of the police, towards the accused-appellant, as such, is coming forth -- Neither the accused, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., has stated about the reason for false implication.

-- MLR, opinion has been given that-'possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out and depends on semen and DNA analysis of supplied cloth and swabs.'

-- As per conclusion in DNA report-The Autosomal STR analysis indicates that DNA profile of seminal stains on source of item no.3B (Cotton Swab) and item No.4 (Salwar) is matching with the DNA Profile of Irshad (Source of item No.6).

Result of genuine DNA test is scientifically adequate and reliance upon the same can be laid to establish the connectivity of the wrong doer -- Thus, in the light of such medical evidence brought on record, sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, as such, and the role of the appellant, is established -- When linkage of the appellant, as such, through scientific manner is coming forth, it was incumbent upon the appellant, to lead sufficient evidence to rebut the legal presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO Act, operating against him -- Convection u/s 4 POCSO Act and Section 376 (3) IPC, upheld.

(Para 22-30)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 42 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Section 376(3) – Retrospective effect of penal provisions -- Sentence awarded u/s 376(3) IPC, while considering the same to be greater in degree than Section 4 of the POCSO Act -- Amendment in the IPC, thereby, adding Section 376(3) IPC, received assent of Hon'ble President of India on 11.08.2018 and in the light of the same, it is submitted that no retrospective effect can be given to this provision, in view of the occurrence in question (allegedly) having taken place on 02.06.2018 – Held, submission so made is not tenable, as the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, was deemed to have come into force on 21.04.2018 and that being so, it was in force at the time of taking of place of occurrence in question on 02.06.2018 – Ld. trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence (20 years RI), so provided in the aforesaid Section 376(3) IPC and the same is just and reasonable.

(Para 30)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape case – Regular bail – Complainant filed an Affidavit to the effect that the subject FIR was registered on a misunderstanding – Medical examination report of the girl did not disclose the commission of rape upon her and there were no signs of any use of force -- Forensic DNA test report disclosed that no human semen was detected -- Final opinion of the expert was that there were no signs suggestive of penetration of the vagina or anus of the victim – Held, no case of sexual assault is made out, prima facie, against the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506, 511 (Section 367 added lateron) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to rape – Regular bail – Compromise between parties – Prosecutrix is 36 years of age -- An affidavit was executed by the complainant/prosecutrix wherein she has stated that the parties have since entered into Panchayati Compromise and therefore, she did not want to pursue any further with the proceedings – Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 7-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366 -- (Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act were added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Compromise between parties -- Petitioner has allegedly enticed away the victim on the pretext of marrying her -- FIR pertains to July, 2019 and at that time, the victim was below 18 years of age and now in view of the compromise, she has performed the marriage and is residing with the petitioner -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Gang rape -- Anticipatory bail – Prosecutrix was 36 years of age – I.O. is not in a position to dispute that the prosecutrix has not supported the contents of FIR in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- Medical evidence has been sent to FSL and report is awaited -- Considering the facts of the case and the age (17 years) of the petitioner, he is granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 2, 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Dowry harassment case – Anticipatory bail – Non-recovery of some dowry articles – Whether it is ground for refusal of pre-arrest bail – Ld. Session Judge held merely on the assertion of the complainant that more valuable articles are yet to be recovered, anticipatory bail could not be refused, criminal proceedings u/s 406 and 498-A of IPC are not meant for recovery of jewellery and dowry articles and complainant, if so chooses, can move civil court for recovery of the said articles – High Court saw no reason to take a different view and withdraw the concession of pre-arrest bail to the accused – Petition by complainant dismissed.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the girl in question shows that she had gone willingly with the petitioner and it has been stated by her in no uncertain terms that nothing wrong was done by the petitioner or anyone else -- Only FSL report is on record and not the medical report -- No doubt, the prosecutrix is minor but in view of her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as also taking into account the age of the petitioner too who is 22 years alongwith the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year, Court deemed it proper to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 1,6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376-C and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- FIR of 2003 – Compromise between parties -- Incident is 17 years old, the complainant is not willing to pursue the matter, the petitioner is in custody for over 06 months -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section Sections 365, 452, 376, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- MLR shows that the age of the prosecutrix is of 19 years -- No external marks of injury have been found on her body -- Furthermore, a perusal of the FSL report shows that human semen was detected only on exhibit-1 (underwear) not detected on rest of the exhibits mentioned in the FSL report -- Challan presented, charges are yet to be framed -- Petitioner is under incarceration since 5.1.2020 -- Due to outbreak of pandemic of COVID-19, trial would take a long time to conclude -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363 and 366-A (Section 120-B IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping case – Run-away marriage -- Protection petition after marriage -- Regular bail – Matriculation certificate shows that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 26.03.2002 and in this manner, on the date when she solemnised marriage with the petitioner, she had attained the age of majority -- State submitted that as per the birth certificate issued by the Registrar (Births and Deaths), the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 26.11.2002 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Kidnapping case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties got their statements recorded and Ld. Magistrate submitted report to the effect that the compromise is genuine – None has put in appearance on behalf of complainant party but no prejudice would be caused to them as they have already made a joint statement with regard to compromise before Ld. Magistrate – FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Jump of bail – Proclaimed offender -- Petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail by High Court but they failed to put in appearance during trial and warrants of arrest were un-executed -- Though the prosecutrix has already turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution, however, concession of anticipatory bail ought not to be allowed to a person who has been declared as proclaimed offender -- Court deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within a period of one week and move appropriate application for bail -- In case they comply with the aforesaid directions their application for bail may be considered on the date so filed. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, relied.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Petition allowed and FIR and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, ordered to be quashed.

(Para 10,11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Inherent powers of High Court – Petitioner married prosecutrix/complainant-respondent and now they are leading happy married life -- State has objected to the aforesaid course, but in the interest of justice and also to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings, Court viewed that inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised in order to achieve ends of justice -- FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Dowry death case – Car given to husband at the time of marriage – Superdari given to husband being registered owner by Special Court holding that since the plea of the petitioner/ complainant was that the car was given in dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter it meant that the same was gifted to the accused-husband -- By getting the car registered in his name the accused-husband accepted the said gift and thus the car cannot be said to be the istridhan of deceased – Held, registration certificate of a vehicle in favour of a person is an important determinative factor of ownership of the vehicle, keeping in view the limited scope of inquiry in a proceeding u/s 451 CrPC -- Petitioner can always stake his ownership on the car after getting the same determined by a competent court of law -- It is yet to be determined whether the car was part of the istridhan -- Ownership rights of the petitioner cannot be determined in proceedings u/s 451 CrPC – Order of Special Court upheld.

(Para 5-13)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Run-away marriage with minor -- Victim had left the house of her own and gone to Bihar with co-accused, where they had performed the marriage -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had allured the victim, who is a minor girl -- Petitioner, who is having a minor child, has been in custody since 14.08.2020 -- No witness has been examined so far -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping – Regular bail -- Victim 17 year old taken away on the pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- She has refused to get herself medically examined -- Challan has been presented -- Charges have also been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Looking to the facts and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Recovery of dowry article – Requirement of -- Bail opposed by complainant on the ground that recovery of the dowry articles is yet to be effected -- Submission is totally misplaced and misconceived, case pertains to the offence u/s 498-A IPC and is not u/s 406 IPC where the entrustment of articles is mandatorily required to be made to the person, by whom, it is misappropriated – Petitioner has joined the Investigation, no more required for further Investigation -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3,4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Rape with mentally retarded girl -- Acquittal by Trial Court – High Court reversed the judgment and convicted the appellant for 7 years R.I. -- Victim had mild mental retardation and she was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspect of sexual assault – Appellant-accused had taken disadvantage of the mental illness of the victim -- Accused is found to be the biological father of the baby child delivered by the victim -- Despite the above, in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement the case of the accused was of a total denial -- It was never the case of the accused that it was a case of consent -- High Court has rightly observed that case would fall u/s 375 and convicted u/s 376 IPC -- Some contradictions with respect to language known by the victim cannot be said to be the major contradictions to disbelieve the entire medical evidence on the mental status of the victim – High Court is justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 376 & 506 IPC -- Imposing the minimum sentence of seven years RI, upheld.

(Para 11-13)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(f), 376(3) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Rape with minor cousin sister – Prosecutrix was residing in house of petitioner being brought up by his mother -- Juvenile’s bail – Prosecutrix entire statement recorded – Petitioner was aged about 15 years when the FIR was lodged still continues to be a juvenile -- By now, he has already remained in Safe Custody for more than one year and one and a half months –  His further detention there would not appear to be in his overall interest due to the fact that there are likely to be more juveniles in conflict with law, housed in the same premises -- Prosecutrix has already been shifted from the parental house of the petitioner -- No reason to deny petitioner the opportunity of coming back to the custody of his parents -- Trial is likely to take its own substantial time, particularly on account of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic -- Revision petition allowed -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 4-8)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354-B, 452, 506, 34 IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Disrobe the woman/minor – POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – There is dispute between two families resulting in registration of two FIR's, taking the allegations in the FIR on its prima facie value, the serious allegations are only against accused S and R, interim bail granted -- Petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation and he is no more required for further investigation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354-D, 506 – Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67(A) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Stalking – Regular bail – Petitioner sent obscene messages to complainant – FIR registered after six months of occurrence -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in judicial custody for the last about five months and also in view of the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Dowry death case -- Summoning of additional accused -- Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved after commencement of the trial -- Four witnesses already stood examined, thus the application was filed at the proper stage -- Evidence has been tested by way of cross-examination -- Persons were named in the FIR -- Only relevant question to be examined was regarding the 'degree of satisfaction' -- Death was caused due to asphyxia which was caused due to strangulation and throttling -- Thus, employment of external force in the death cannot be ruled out -- Harassment of deceased started on account of dowry immediately after the marriage -- PW-2 has attributed a specific role to father-in-law i.e. that of handing over gold jewellery of the deceased to him before she was rehabilitated on one occasion -- Thus, there exists more than prima facie case against father-in-law and the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Charges have been framed u/s 498-A IPC as well and there was no requirement of proving anything beyond harassment for dowry for summoning the additional accused.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone 1 year, 4 months and 12 days of custody and there is no other case pending against her – Medical evidence on record is in favour of the prosecution -- Death appears to have been caused by throttling which implies use of external force -- Moreover, prima facie, harassment on account of dowry has been established -- Death has taken place within one year and five months of marriage – Not a case of false implication -- It is not a case of inordinate delay -- Petition has no merit and dismissed at this stage.

(Para 18-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 376(2n), 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Relation on pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix already married – Regular bail -- Petitioner was already married -- Prosecutrix was married and staying with GC (the elder brother of her deceased husband) -- Unless the prosecutrix proves that she has taken divorce from GC, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage – Petitioner in custody since 31.08.2020 and the parties being mature enough to understand the implications of such like relationship and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 343, 506, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 – Gang rape with minor – Regular bail -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.12.2019 and the victim and her father/complainant have not supported the version of the prosecution, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354, 376, 406, 498-A, 506, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation that when the complainant was present in her room, the petitioner forcibly entered into her room and caught hold of her from the backside and started imposing himself with a bad intention and also started pressing her breasts – Superintendent of Police, was directed to file a specific affidavit as to how the present FIR has been registered u/s 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC keeping in view the allegations in the FIR – As per the statement of the victim and medical report, no case u/s 376 IPC is made out and the same stands deleted and Section 354 IPC has been added subsequently -- Petition allowed, interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 17 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 346, 365 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape with minor girl – Regular bail -- Argued that prosecutrix in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., did not name the petitioner and on the basis of a supplementary statement, the petitioner was named as a person, who had also ravished her along with one B – B declared as a juvenile and released on bail, while further contending that FSL would reflect that human semen has been detected on an exhibit pertaining to B and not the petitioner – Held, material witnesses have been examined and that conclusion of trial will take sufficient time, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars – Petition allowed and direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)